The first stage of propulsion could use electromagnetic tracks to accellerate the vehicles. Unmanned utility drones could save fuel costs by using higher rates of accelleration in this first stage, relying on the structural limits, rather than human limitations of G forces. As the craft leaves the runway it could be powered by either pulse detonation engines or blastwave pulse jets. Scramjets remain a possibilty, but I feel they are too complex geometrically to be workable to the private sector. The noise of the pulse jets will be less of an issue because the high altitude launch will diffuse the sonic pollution.

Three tethers would anchor the sphere in a triangular shape, drastically reducing drift. A multiple elevator system would be mandatory in order to carry out business efficiently with the time tables of ascent and descent.
The primary structure tethers would have to be massive, unless exotic materials make promising advances in the near future.

Ships returning to the sphere would rely on automatic control to guide the craft into the wind down tunnel(s). Using electromagnetic rails, the craft would utilize a controlled decceleration ending in the hanger area.

Any thoughts?

_________________I wonder how many of the serfs even remember that the founders intended to create a free country here.
DO NOT ADJUST YOUR MIND:
IT IS REALITY THAT IS MALFUNCTIONING

Sounds complex and (in its own weird little way) fairly elegant. Not by any means the ideal system -- lots of doubly- and triply-redundant safety devices have to be put in -- but it just might work. Again, I do *not* have a degree, so don't take my word on it.

It's like a monster balloon. A hurricane to one side of it may cause it to spin...

I don't know if you would really want to try for propulsion. Once you get up big enough, propulsion becomes a bit of a joke, especially at altitude. Possibly giant props in a circle along one of the geodesics might work but...

It really is a fantastic concept in every meaning of the word. It would take a mind like Jules Verne to take it from odd engineering concept to practical reality.

I'm just trying to advance the concept using today's technologies. Considering that it is highly unlikely I'm going to start construction in my back yard, safety technologies and check sensors can be consideered irrelevant in the initial brainstorming. Those devises should be at the height of technology when implented in such an extreme project, so they don't need much thought years before their possible implementation.

The dome would be stationary, so a propulsion system is unnecessary. It would be far cheaper to anchor it, then consider moving the behemeth. Funny you should mention the windage factors, and the twisting motion, because I was pondering the same problem after I posted last night. The tri-tether anchoring system woul'd only tolerate a twisting motion, or a downward draft powerful enough to hinder the natural bouency.

A colder norther climate far from the oceans would lesson the atmospheric extremes. Hurricanes and tornadoes are far less likely, and most storm systems would pass under the sphere, if a higher altitude could be achieved. central Canada would be a very good location. You could also grow industial hemp for structural canvas, and methanol fuel stocks. a large shallow canvas geodesic dome could provide worker housing, and later disassembled (or inverted in one solid unit) to finish the spaceport. A large aquaponic pillow dome, coupled with the abundance of hemp seeds could easily feed the workforce, further cutting costs.

Canvas fins at regular longitudinal intervals could lesson spinning effects, as well as reflect additional solar radiation to increase bouency. Any spinning would be a dangerous variable in any docking system. So atmspheric activity would have to be studied in depth, before any possible work begins.

_________________I wonder how many of the serfs even remember that the founders intended to create a free country here.
DO NOT ADJUST YOUR MIND:
IT IS REALITY THAT IS MALFUNCTIONING

Last edited by RBFFFF on Thu Mar 18, 2004 3:34 am, edited 2 times in total.

Actually, the best place to put such a leviathan would be within ~5° of the equator. These are the doldrums, a place where the coriolis force (the thing that causes spin) has a negligible effect, and the place where storms simply cannot exist. Coriolis increases with distance from the equator, so the closer you get to the equator, the less coriolis you have to deal with. No storms, no turbulence, just a bunch of hot, wet air moving almost straight up.

Also the perfect climate for massive sativas year round. Sweet. (I mean for raw materials of course)

You completely reversed my thinking in a way I can't thank you enough for. Wanna go in on half of the construction costs Spacecowboy? You know how sweet it would be to get chicks? "I own a space port, ever dunnit in zero G?" we'll be beating them off with sticks.

Btw that evil overlord page is hilarious, I got to slap a link on my thread

Also the perfect climate for massive sativas year round. Sweet. (I mean for raw materials of course)

You completely reversed my thinking in a way I can't thank you enough for. Wanna go in on half of the construction costs Spacecowboy? You know how sweet it would be to get chicks? "I own a space port, ever dunnit in zero G?" we'll be beating them off with sticks.

Why do you think those of us familiar with the concept of nullo (0g) are so strong in our support of space colonization?

Oh, and methanol is a very good fuel. Right up there with isopropanol (also known as rubbing alcohol) and a short bit above ethanol (drinking alcohol).

You know you're a nerd when you accidentally stumbled across the formulas for Ecstasy, ethanol, and LSD and wondered if you could build a nanobug to manufacture the stuff with...

You know you're a nerd when you accidentally stumbled across the formulas for Ecstasy, ethanol, and LSD and wondered if you could build a nanobug to manufacture the stuff with...

ethanol's really easy to make. i made some for my high school chemistry project this year, it's not often you can distill moonshine (not that i'd want to drink it) in your school legally. as to the other two, i'm sure i could make them, i'm also sure i wouldn't want to.

You can find pyrolytic reactors on the internet, but rather hard to find. I stumbled across one a few weeks ago, but can't seem to find the site today. The home unit could produce 150 liters a day, but I couldn't find the cost of the device, so it's very likely to be expensive.

I'll try to find a research site that has plans for a reactor. I bet a lot of you amateur rocket scientists in Canada would love to get methonal fuel from your own plot of Industrial hemp.

_________________I wonder how many of the serfs even remember that the founders intended to create a free country here.
DO NOT ADJUST YOUR MIND:
IT IS REALITY THAT IS MALFUNCTIONING

You can find pyrolytic reactors on the internet, but rather hard to find. I stumbled across one a few weeks ago, but can't seem to find the site today. The home unit could produce 150 liters a day, but I couldn't find the cost of the device, so it's very likely to be expensive.

I'll try to find a research site that has plans for a reactor. I bet a lot of you amateur rocket scientists in Canada would love to get methonal fuel from your own plot of Industrial hemp.

What I found about it:

Quote:

The wood distillation industry used pyrolytic reactors in a process called destructive distillation. The operation was carried out in a fractionating column (a tall still) under high heat (from 1000-1700°F). Charcoal was the main fuel product and methanol production was about 1% to 2% of volume or 6 gallons per ton. This traditional method was replaced by the synthetic process developed in 1927.

The synthetic process utilizes a pyrolytic reactor operating as a gasifier by injecting air or pure oxygen into the reactor core to completely burn the biomass to ash. The energy contained in the biomass is released in the gasses formed. After purification the syngas, hydrogen and carbon monoxide in a 2 to 1 ratio, is altered by catalysts under high pressure and heat, to form methanol. This method will produce 100 gallons of methanol per ton of feed material.

Methanol-powered automobiles and reduced emissions from coal-fired power plants can become a reality by using biomass derived fuels. The foundation upon which this will be achieved is the emerging concept of energy farming, wherein farmers grow and harvest crops that are converted into fuels. Energy farming can save American family farms and turn the American heartland into a prosperous source of clean renewable energy production.

Pyrolysis is the most efficient process for biomass conversion into fuels that can replace all fossil fuel products. . . . When farmers can grow hemp for biomass they will make a profit energy farming.

Universities, government agencies, and private firms have conducted studies looking into the feasibility of growing biomass at low cost to make fuels at affordable prices, but the most promising plant species was never considered because it is prohibited. Instead emphasis has centered around utilizing waste products: agricultural residues after harvest, forestry wastes from the timber and pulp wood industry, and municipal wastes. All of these combined cannot produce enough fuel to satisfy the needs of industry or the American consumer's automobile. Yet biomass conversion to fuel has been proven economically feasible in laboratory tests and by continuous operation of pilot plants in field tests since 1973.

...

Hemp is the only biomass resource capable of making America energy independent. The government suspended marijuana prohibition during WWII. It's time to do it again.

About 6% of contiguous United States land area put into cultivation for biomass could supply all current demands for oil and gas without adding any net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

What if the way it's handled can get more advanced and better ?
What if the US wouldn't need to pay all that money to soudi arabia and other countries ? Good for the US economy I think, great for jobs, forces oil nations to be more inovating (good for the people) to keep a profitable economy, etc

Bad for big oil companies (bush & co.), bad for general conservatives (note, I use this word under the littrly conservative term, not the political one.. where some none conservatives... feelthemself a lot conservative.., but of course a lot of them are conservative), changes in way of living, in way of working, in way of who gets the monney... conclusion... this won't happen that very soon

Looking at the past of general psychological developments of changes... I think 40 to 50 years... before it will be acceptable.

If you really want to loose your faith in America, look for the popular mechanics article that was published a year after prohibition. Then look into dupont's history in regards to hemp prohibition. Not only did hemp pose a threat to their petrolium interests, but threatened to completely replace thier sulfuric acid paper process(=acid rain+massive deforestation) when the good-old US Agricultural department discoverd a non-poluting papermaking process that could provide yearly renewable hemp paper. Wood-pulp paper was projected to acount for 50-70% of their anuall business. Then add Hearst newspapers who own a vast portion of our northwestern forests, and virtually controlled the nation's media.

well, that article certainly has me converted on the issue of legalizing industrial hemp. i was never really against it in the first place, but it did seem unlikely that so much energy could be gotten from a completely banned source. just goes to show the stupidity of the modern u.s. government.

There's nothing stupid about it. follow the money, oil companies stand to lose alot if hemp is legalized, just as pharmaceutical companies would lose if cannabis is legalized.

Well, I call this stupid it can create so manny jobs... it can help the poor people living in th united states with giving them new jobs etc... it takes money from the rich to the poor (more energy needed = pay more = people have more work to deliver it, more people can work)Rich people need more energy... they pay to normal or poor people the money to buy it... that's better then some large oil company.

I call those oil companies stupid.. sorry it are the same companies..; stopping the car industry from making more nature friendly engines.Maybe stupid isn't the right word, but selfish is the right one But selfish people... who got the power to change all to the better... well personally.. I see a connection to stupidity I hope the next US President don't got connections to the oil industry like Bush (I don't know anough about john kerry... but he seems to be more liberal and I guess better..; but still not THAT good, he wont stand the pressure of those companies, with the next 4 years election in his mind )

RBFFFF wrote:

My estimate is 10-20 years. Canada will soon become a major influence upon America when their industrial hemp industries reach maturity.

Well, when the money is not going to the oil companies... but gets imported from Canada... (by smaller companies or organizations, or just people) then yes... you're rigth... that will help a lot.